I just about fell out of my chair when I saw last Sunday's Dialog cover stories on whether to dip into discretionary funds for athletics at San Diego State University. I cannot believe this is even open for discussion. I strongly believe that sports and other extracurricular activities are invaluable to the total development of a child, but when we are sending our high school “graduates” to college without even finishing their high school education and then trying to borrow money to spend on sports in a financial crisis, we are doing them a great disservice.

If athletics and extracurricular activities need more funds, then I suggest they hold more fundraisers, establish and support booster clubs and pound the pavement for team sponsorships. California has shown time and time again that its concern for the next generation of this state is negligible. It's time to demand better for our children. If we don't, this very rich state will become a very poor state. The next generation won't be smart enough to run it.

AMANDA CARLSON
Coronado

Former SDSU football star and actor Fred Dryer's jumble of caustic insults and faulty logic aimed at academic faculty members of SDSU over President Stephen Weber's decision to plunge $2.7 million into the university's lackluster athletics program was the most selfish piece of nonsense I have ever read. Calling academic faculty who work to improve the intellectual capacity and employability of students “elites” was a nauseating irony.

I work 40-hour weeks at my job, take graduate classes at SDSU at night and tutor freshman writing classes, routinely bringing my work weeks to more than 70 hours. I do this because I see it as my only way out of escalating living expenses and flat raises. My definition of an “elite” is someone who gets to have a well-paid and publicized career for simply throwing and catching a ball.

In my eight years at SDSU I have never attended an athletic event and have never experienced what Dryer claims is the major benefit of an athletics program – the “pride and participation” – but that could be because I have to work 70-hour weeks to pay my tuition.

PAMELA J. McGLYNN
San Diego

After reading Fred Dryer's commentary applauding SDSU President Stephen Weber's use of over $2 million of discretionary funding for SDSU's football program, I am now convinced of one thing: It is time to cut the football program at San Diego State University.

Instead of throwing good money after bad, San Diego State can use the more than $5 million and 90 scholarships that are spent on its football program and spend them on restoring men's volleyball, men's track and field, men's cross country and men's swimming and diving that have been sacrificed over the years so football could survive. And have money left over for academic programs.

It is clear that cutting a losing football program that has only modest support in the San Diego community would not harm the reputation of SDSU academically, financially or athletically. It seems that extremely few students come to SDSU because of the football program, as proven by the small number of students attending games.

With football's budget deficit, it is clear that the football program is not paying its way or bringing in large donations. Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge and Cal State Los Angeles have all dropped football and all have thriving athletic departments.

Now is the time for the leadership at SDSU to drop football and move boldly ahead academically and athletically!

SCOTT GRANDI
El Cajon

Hey, professor Peter C. Herman. That opposing retired Aztec lineman, Fred Dryer, is a product of football and academics and doesn't read like a product of “an academic disaster.” Comparative literature this time goes to the defensive end. Let's hear it for President Weber and fill up the stadium for a more successful part of university education.

RICHARD C. VANCE Sr.
La Jolla

Fred Dryer's rambling defense of San Diego State's profligate athletic program demonstrates what happens when you play in the National Football League for 14 years without a helmet.

BOB YARBER
Kensington

In Fred Dryer's commentary, he identifies football as being more important than tutoring and outreach because of the need of a football program to provide pride in the school and to drive donations. He also states that a university's prominence comes, in part, from excellence in major college football.

Dryer's laughable comparison of football to outreach and tutoring was meant as a joke. I'll leave that be. Dryer's statement of prominence coming from any football program is easily answered by the fact that schools such as UC Santa Barbara have major donors and high academic prominence without any football program. It has more prominence than even SDSU. By the way, when has SDSU ever had what could be perceived as a college football power program. If the program cannot support itself, then the discretionary funding should be spent educating students. That's the real purpose of a university.

To not fund or even eliminate the football program could be a short-term solution that could be reversed in, say, five years. Remember that Southern Methodist University's football program was given what is known as the death penalty by the NCAA, and now it is back in business playing college football.

College football exists because of college academics, not the other way around. In fact, without the academics you have a system known as semi-pro football. No academics required. We can all see how well these type teams are supported by their alumni. Perhaps former semi-pro players realize that their money is better spent elsewhere.

I say these things even though I think college football is the best football in the world.